Politician fumes in planning democracy row
Conservation campaigners say politicians are increasingly being cut out of the planning process by a drive to meet Government targets for handling development applications.
One councillor has lodged a formal complaint about a decision not to refer a scheme which attracted more than 30 objections to Bath and North East Somerset Council's development control committee.
-
David Dixon at the site
Instead, the application to knock down a house at Percy Place off London Road and replace it with two new homes was approved under delegated powers by a planning officer.
The council says it has been under pressure from the Government to improve its record on dealing with applications promptly for seven years, and that it is now meeting Whitehall targets.
Less than three per cent of all planning applications in B&NES are now decided by elected politicians.
Five years ago, the Royal Institute of British Architects complained that the planning system in Bath was "in danger of collapse" because of delays in making decisions, while three years ago design expert Stephen Bayley accused civic leaders of being "spineless" in the face of conservation campaigners.
A decision on whether a plan needs to go before the committee - where it can be debated and where members of the public can also have their say - rests with committee chairman Councillor Les Kew.
He has declined to comment other than to say the application by McCarthy Homes was an amendment to a scheme which had also been dealt with under delegated powers.
Mr Kew (Con, High Littleton) was asked by local member Councillor David Dixon (Lib Dem, Walcot) to put the Percy Place scheme on a committee agenda.
Mr Dixon describes Mr Kew's decision to leave it in the officer's hands as "nuts" and has now made a complaint under B&NES's official procedures.
"How one councillor gets to decide that a fair public hearing is not worthy of an application that received so much objection has left me pretty much depressed at the state of democracy, to be quite honest.
"It's a crazy proposal and a crazy decision to approve it."
The Bath Heritage Watchdog pressure group is worried by volume of decisions made by officials.
A spokesman said: "Ward councillors are elected to represent their ward, and it stifles local democracy if when they try to do that with planning applications which adversely affect their ward, they can be thwarted at the whim of one person.
"It is entirely wrong that council policy should be designed to render ward councillors ineffective. The system must be changed."
On its website, the group adds: "Effectively the voters in High Littleton have elected somebody who can disenfranchise the electorate in every other ward in B&NES."
The row comes as dozens of jobs are under threat in the planning department as politicians battle to balance the council's books.
Bath Preservation Trust chief executive Caroline Kay, whose group objected to the scheme, said: "With the threat of a third of the planning staff losing their jobs, it's increasingly important for councillors to take a leading role."
Neighbour Jon Barton was one of the objectors. He said: "The development is not in keeping with any of the houses within the area, particularly the grade two listed buildings it will be positioned in front of. In my opinion, there is something not quite right about how this whole thing has been rushed through and passed, ignoring all input from residents."
Stephen Turner, who lives to the rear of nearby Alexander Buildings and whose wife struggled to get permission to build a single house in Ringswell Gardens five years ago, said he was incensed.
"We had to, rightly or wrongly, jump through many hoops involving the planners, committees, the Environment Agency and consultations with neighbours.
"As a result a beautiful, modest, two-storey house was granted planning permission and has now been built. Needless to say when we sought permission, we wanted a larger three-storey non-Bath Stone dwelling to maximise profits – but this was rejected in order that the property should fit sympathetically into a World Heritage City.
"In view of this we fail to see how a larger number of dwellings, which in my opinion are less sympathetic in style and have a far greater impact on other residents - evidence of this in over 30 objections – can even be granted permission, let alone not even reach a committee."
In a statement, B&NES said it had begun falling foul of Government target timescales for determining planning applications in 2003.
"The council needed to find ways to help achieve these targets and improve our service for applicants. Since approving the council's planning scheme for delegation in November 2007, which has resulted in more applications being determined by planning officers and fewer decided through the committee process, the planning service has been successful in speeding up planning application decisions for most people.
"It has provided better value for money for the local taxpayer because the process is now more efficient. The council is now meeting Government targets."
Applications can be referred to the committee if a ward councillor requests this in writing within a set-down timescale.
The council said: "They need to specify the planning reasons for the request and at this point the case is referred to the chair of the development control committee, who will consider whether to refer the application to committee, taking into account relevant material considerations raising significant planning concerns, significant implications for adopted policy and the nature, scale and complexity of the proposed development."
The scheme was designed by award-winning architect Alvin Howard of Melksham firm Bolingbroke, who declined to comment.
In a statement, the RIBA said: "Whilst we are unable to comment on the specifics of the application in question, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Town Planning Institute fully support the principle of delegated powers in the determination of applications in accordance with the schemes of delegation that have been established by local authorities.
"Planning officers are working under significant pressures of time and resources to deliver decisions, many of which contribute to the growing success of the city of Bath and its surrounding area. Where processes have been established to assist in the delivery of development that conforms to the local development plan these should be encouraged and supported at all levels."
22 Comments
View all
by Peter Streater, Bathwick
Sunday, January 24 2010, 12:20PM
“Ian, Bath - For democratically elected politicians to use 'planning' to avoid democratic process is a divisive culture that must be held accountable.
It's obvious from your comments on the BRT (and its related Bath Transportation Package) that you have no information on how planning processes have been manipulated and circumvented by B&NES council to achieve their pre-determined objectives.
Your answer that: "The planning officer recommended for the BRT to be permitted to which the Members agreed" is misleading and untrue, because on July 8th DC committee members clear disagreement with planning recommendations was inexplicably ignored.
Your answer that: "Reducing congestion will help improve business efficiency. There is no question of that. Whether the BRT scheme actually will I think we will never know," is also misleading and untrue, because B&NES council's own documentation reveals that there is absolutely no basis for this claim.
To continue to proceed then, by spending £60 million of taxpayers money on something you say we might never be able to assess the benefits of, is plainly ridiculous.
Your answer: "Democracy is about having the chance to say what you want and then accept the decisions of elected politicans in good grace. Its not about getting what you want" is true, but completely misses my point that implementation of the Bath Transportation Package has not followed any democratic principles.
I've no doubts that it will be dealt with (your point 5). In the meantime, I suggest you should deal with the issue of finding documentation that unambiguously supports both your own made here and other purely aspirational claims regarding the BRT.”
by Dave, Larkhall
Sunday, January 24 2010, 8:11AM
“As a matter of interest Fed Up, and as a planner yourself, answer me this. Why is there a necessity for a large number of private planning practices in the UK?”
by Dave, Larkhall
Saturday, January 23 2010, 6:39PM
“Pedantic point Fed Up. The act was completed and titled 1947 and as a planner yourself you know no one ever refers to the planning act of 48. So on this mute point we can but agree to disagree.
You state:
"I for one would rather the planners make the decisions, after all, they are trained and educated in the system and work it on a daily basis."
This is precisely the core of my argument. They work the system!
I feel very strongly that they should be given more powers not less, but they must be given, and take the responsibility of a more pro-active, creative role within development proposals. After all they have the final say at the end of the day, but are perceived to be nothing more than policeman, judge and jury. There is no such thing as planning law of precedence, as my neighbour found out to his cost. The whim or mood of the planning officer concerned was paramount. Is that fair and reasonable?
As for planning refusals. Must admit to never having suffered one, so that does not tarnish my view point.”
by Fed up of Larkhall, Bath
Saturday, January 23 2010, 6:01PM
“The Planning Act of 1947 actually came into effect on 1st July 1948...So technically Dave, you are wrong (not for the first time)
With regard to the downturn, applications have dropped by 20% and to cut jobs at this point is simply short termist and short sighted, the markets are already picking up and so are applications. Isn't it going to be a wonderful place to live in when all of the planners are struggling to do more work with less resources - still, will give you something to keep winging about!
I for one have had nothing but good, high quality service from the planners at B&NES and also in other authorities, and as a qualified planner myself am fully aware of the political pressures they sometime face and how hard it is to manage the expectations of one and all. Without a planning system - irrespective of your feelings about it - this country would be in a horrendous state (take, any country that has problems with shanty towns for example) and if our system is so bad why is it the model that forms the basis of systems in Australia, NZ, South Africa, Canada and many more nations?
Sadly through experience, it always seems to be the ones who never got their permissions that bad mouth planners and the jobs they do.
With regard to the article itself, the scheme of delegation, as I understand it, was brought in to cut down on so many "petty" applicataions going to Committee, wasting time and energy. The result is that only those cases that need to go do. You have to remember that whilst the Committee gives a "fair" forum of debate, at the end of the day, the members are elected local politicians who are concerned with keeping their seats. Sadly, this country is marked by so many poor decisions that were "politically" made - you only have to look back 20 or 30 years when it wasn't uncommon for members to be "influenced" by developers into granting decisions totally in the face of Policy. I for one would rather the planners make the decisions, after all, they are trained and educated in the system and work it on a daily basis. Cut them some slack.”
by Ian, Bath
Saturday, January 23 2010, 5:02PM
“Peter
Point 1: Thats a politics issue, not a planners decision. Blame elected leaders for that. Hardly reason to sack planners over.
Point 2: The planning officer recommended for the BRT to be permitted to which the Members agreed.
Point 3: That is the view of the applicants (The Development and Major Protects team of the Council) who are are a different department to Planning. Planning only made a recommendation on the scheme to elected Members who agreed.
Point 4: Reducing congestion will help improve business efficiency. There is no question of that. Whether the BRT scheme actually will I think we will never know,
Point 5: Yes it is. Deal with it.
Democracy is about having the chance to say what you want and then accept the decisions of elected politicans in good grace. Its not about getting what you want.”
by Dave, Larkhall
Saturday, January 23 2010, 4:44PM
“Ian, let me firstly correct you. The first planning act initiating the current system was in 1947 not 1948. Prior to that planning acts were implemented in 1932 with the earliest in 1909.
As for your analogy with surgeons, that's simply ludicrous. Surgeons physically achieve. Can't recall seeing a planner driving a JCB, a crane or laying bricks.
Having got the incorrect year, I'm afraid I treat the remainder of your statistics with some scepticism. Talk to architects, quantity surveyors, developers and house builders. Their response to your figures would be somewhat lacking in your optimism.
As for your assumption that lower level planners would be unlikely to seek advice from their superiors is a trifle fanciful, and as the written word so clearly decrees the Assistant Director and/or Group Manager are sanctioned to determine whether or not a planning application be placed before the committee. End of story really.
As for the libel thing? No further comment.”
by Peter Streater, Bathwick
Saturday, January 23 2010, 3:41PM
“Ian, Bath - Read the documentation: The planning process of May 2009 was 'engineered' by the substitution regular committee members who intended to vote against the wishes of the council leadership on a scheme that will waste nearly £60 million of public funds.
Read the documentation: Planners did not permit the BRT, the rejected it and were redirected to approval by the council leadership.
Read the documentation: You may have been told the BRT will reduce congestion. This is a lie (no libel case to be had here).
Read the documentation: You may have been told the BRT will improve business efficiency. This is totally misleading, wholly untrue and has no foundation in any proven facts.
Is this the "democracy" that created the system you write about?”
by Ian, Bath
Saturday, January 23 2010, 1:35PM
“Ah Dave so you finally admit its just the planning system you don't like. Well thats the result of our elected MP's and the first planning act back in 1948.
So you'd quite happily shoot the messengers of this system. Thats very noble of you.You ignore the fact that our democracy has created this system in the first place!
Also your belief that by sacking planners will be of benefit to Bath is laughable. Thats like saying sacking surgeons will allow you to carry on providing the same number of operations. Unpopluar the planners are but by getting rid of them will only lead to things getting worse with no decisions being made at all.
The fact is the work has not stopped, its only reduced by 20% which after a 2 years recession, 3 years of the credit crunch and changes to the GDPO doesn't seem all that bad. Then you have to factor that the recession will offically end when figures are announed in 2 weeks time.
In regards to lacking in proactive positive thinking I don't know where you are coming from. The Council permitted the Dyson scheme, a positive, and permitted the BRT which we are told is aimed at reducing congestion to help improve business efficiency.
And to answer the double glazing in the southgate development i imagine its because its not a listed building and therefore the single glazing requirment doesn't apply.
In regards to appeals, if the Council acts unreasonably you can do them for costs. Thats enough of a threat to ensure that what side of the bed attidude won't apply.
In terms of the scheme of delegation, I read that to only mean the two people identified. if you think that a director would be influenced by a lacky way down the chain of command you are in cloud cuckoo land mate. So again i think your first comment is totally incorrect, misleading and still opens you to libel.
And before you start on your usual comment that I must work in Trimbridge House, I will point out to you that there are a number of private planning practices in and around Bath with people who like your daughter will be able to have a detailed discussion on this topic.”
by Dave, Larkhall
Friday, January 22 2010, 5:48PM
“no it doesn't because that is only two people, not the many that you want sacked.............
With your blind obsession against planners.......
Wrong on both counts Ian! Consider the phrase literally. The Assistant Director and/or the Group Manager...........meaning all at levels below will take applications to them for advice. "What do you think Assistant Director/Group manager, shall we take this to committee or not?" "Well, no I don't think so." As for the sackings. I personally hate the thought of people losing their jobs. But, as with private enterprise, if the work is not coming through the door, then it makes sense to consolidate the operation. No one is entitled to a salary for doing nothing.
Blind obsession! No! Open eyed obsession. I've always been up front with my criticism of planners and their role. Change their title to "Promoters" and I'd be less critical.”
by Dave, Larkhall
Friday, January 22 2010, 5:17PM
“"To determine all applications for planning and other permissions except where:
i) The Assistant Director of Planning and Transport Development and/or the Group Manager (Operations and Business Development) considers that the application should be considered by Committee."
I think that covers my backside libel wise, Ian. I cannot recall naming anyone, and I'm pretty sure the legal eagles of the Chronicle would soon remove comments of a libellous nature. But of course if someone out there knows better.........
Your reference to the councillor is a total misunderstanding, he was there on behalf of his constituent, and was treated as disdainfully.
As R, Ian, you miss the crux of my argument. It is not 'hate' or any other form of emotion toward planners. It is the system and the lack of pro-active positiveness that concerns me. The example I gave of the window? I'm sorry but you will have to take my word for the authenticity of the exact replication of circumstances. The point I was trying to get across was, why should it be necessary to go to appeal, and waste time and money when an exactly similar decision already existed. Why should we rely on the side of the bed the planner got out of, or whether he/she likes you or not. That is why we elect our councillors, and that is why planning officers are there to advise. Not decide.”